The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United State.

Just a random thought that crossed my mind when I was smoking my crack pipe.

Don't you think the post WW II marginal tax rate of 91% on the top bracket had a little something to do with retiring the war debt?

Raising the current top rate from 36% back to the pre-Bush 39% is still a bargain if you want to make those WW II comparisons.

Look, you aren't going to get someone like UG to even consider higher taxes short of guaranteeing it will increase penis length by 4 " and giving him a full and lustrous head of hair.

While you think I'm a right wing nutjob (and I play one on tv) I'm a bit more reasonable. I accept that the IRS, lobbiests, pols, and media will never allow a flat tax to ever go into effect. I believe for this country to survive as the powerhouse it was after WWII things must change. By things I don't just mean tax rates. Short term tax increases combined with drastic cost cutting is necessary. Obamacare, education, defense, and all of the rest of the sacred cows must be cut. Let the bloodletting begin. Cut all funding to the UN. Cut foreign aid. Close overseas bases. Gut the lobby-centric R&D process.

One more thought on the WW II comparison if you will indulge me.

Note how every tax bracket was raised by 20-30% at the onset of WW II to pay for war. Common sense economics when you go to war. As opposed to starting a war in Iraq and lowering taxes at the same time. BTW, the Iraq war is now the second costliest war in US history.

On the flat tax, I dont think it is just a matter of the IRS, lobbyist, pols, media oppose it but also because there has never been a flat tax model that realistically is revenue neutral, even assuming significant spending cuts.

On spending cuts, they should be strategic and not ideological. Foreign aid is insignificant (about 1% of the budget) and aid to some countries should absolutely be cut, but aid to others pays off is ways that are not easily measured but meaningful.

At the same time, in order to regain our economic competitiveness, we also need to spend more in some areas. R&D spending has been flat in recent years and while others, like China most notably, are making significant investments in R&D, particularly in cutting edge technologies like clean energy.

We also need to spend more on infrastructure on everything from roads and bridges to broadband. A recent report from the Organization for International Investment documents the issue.

There are many areas we can cut that make sense but it will require compromise and shared sacrifice (there I go again with those buzz words).

At the same time, Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958.

Spending cuts that make sense, entitlement reform w/o gutting programs through more costly (to the end users) ideological privatization plans and tax reform, including restoring the marginally higher rate for the top bracket as well as closing the multitude of corporate tax loopholes (and perhaps even lowering the corporate rate a bit).

Oh, and I dont think my right wing nut job monitor has ever gone off in your presence. It is highly selective.

Ideology? Not at all. Waste. Waste. Waste.

I'm a strong proponent of making dead certain that each one of our military branches is the strongest of type in the world BUT the R&D process is so full of waste it is obscene. Lobbiests and backslapping politicians have spent decades creating processes that are less focused on introducing the best technology to the field than they are on enriching themselves. For a very good example of the excesses read the book Boyd.

In regards to the flat tax, I firmly believe absolutely every single person living legally in the US should pay income tax or no one should. As I've described in the past, my view on a flat tax isn't really flat but I truly believe 1% on every single dollar up to $50-60K and 20%(ish) on every dollar of personal income over with no deductions beyond first home mortgage interest would solve many problems.

After you get that done let's talk about my version of comprehensive immigration reform.

I don't think anybody sees you as a right-wing nutjob. A heartless capitalist who leaves a trail of broken workers and weary orphans, sure...

But not a nutjob :p

But I am getting a lingering whiff of a guerrilla in the mist this morning.

By ideological, I was referring to the proposal to defund Planned Parenthood (women's health screening and pregnancy prevention) and deep cuts to social safety net programs which will only cost taxpayers more in the end.

The federal government has had a significant role in R&D since the industrial revolution and helped fuel most innovations since then. Even before then, guys like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton advocated government subsidies of R&D for the advancement of technologies to the benefit of industry.

Particularly when the focus is on basic research which stimulates innovation vs applied research. There is not enough return on investment for the private sector to spend on basic research.

Not to invest in a knowledge based economy would only make it much more difficult for the US to compete when other countries are making significant government investments in those areas.

Address the waste with a scalpel not a chain saw.

Sounds alot like Paul Ryan's proposal to have only two tax rates - 10% for income up to $100K, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, and 25% for income above that amount.

But then he also had to add a 8% VAT (national sales tax) and an assumption of a 7% annual GDP growth rate (5% would be considered highly optimistic) in order to be revenue neutral with the massive cuts he proposed.

I understand the ideology of wanting to tax everyone equally, but taxing those on the margin at the same rate as those at the top just doesnt make economic sense to me. Again, taxpayers will end up paying more as those on the margin are forced to turn to other programs just to survive.

That sounds ideological, to me. There's a whole lot of waste in the military, but, because of your ideology, you don't want to cut there.

Stop deductions for popping out kids. Zero tax liability? Fine. Negative 3000 dollars tax liability? No.

Problem solved.

I'm a strong proponent for killing deductions. If you kill the ascending tax rate plan there is no need/room for deductions.
As I said I believe everyone should pay something. I don't even believe 10% on the first $50-60K is necessary. 1% is a symbolic gesture that everyone pays their share. 20-25-30%... I don't really care what it is, so long as there aren't loopholes and shelters the money will come in. The mega rich have massive tax games to avoid paying at their current marginal rates and they already payin excess of 70% of every tax dollar collected. Eliminate the shell game, lower the rate, and actually collect more money. My problem is we seem to have this misguided idea that we should develop a giant system of all the things we want to do and then go taxing to try to pay for it all. Try doing that in your own life. Get the house, car, clothes, education, meal plans, medical care, retirement, toys, and while you're at it adopt a few of your neighbors needs as your own... then go tell your boss how much he needs to pay you. Let me know how that works for you.


F&B, I said nothing about killing R&D but gutting it like a fish is a good place to start. There is a vast difference between not researching and developing new technologies and letting R&D be driven by political forces. There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in military R&D it would make an Enron executive blush. Design programs influenced by politicians and lobbiests are full of fluff and more often than not do not turn out the desired products. It should not take 15 + years to design a generation of fighters, armored vehicles, or body armor. Then again, the different services don't necessarily need individual camouflage patterns, and they certainly don't need to change their uniform designs every 24-36 months with a 5-7 year testing period beforehand.

Spexx, I'll assume you didn't read any of my posts before responding with some witty comment so you can skip this before going on to crafting your reply. Gutting R&D is a major cut in the military budget, withdrawing troops and closing bases around the world are major cuts. Fielding the best troops in the world with the best equipment in the world is possible if we quit trying to be the world's police force and focus on crafting a force to defend our country. A force capable of flat out destroying any nation or organization that chooses to provoke a response is what we should be aiming for. The military should be a hammer, not a swiss army knife.

Foreign aid? They all say we don't do enough anyway, so why bother? Cut the aid right now, toss the UN out on their asses and quit funding their corruption. Even if it's only 1% of GDP, that equals a lot of dollars that could be used to solve our own problems.

This is the kind of comment that causes unpleasant forum "discussions".

Not at all. I can only assume you didn't bother to read my post when this is your response to my post where I clearly state that military spending should be cut.

Anything else?

The US military is more powerful than the next (is it) eight countries combined? That is ridiculous. US military secret arms budget (that Congress is not permitted to study) is larger than something like the entire military of the next three largest countries combined.

Well, even the French and British could not collect enough smart bombs to attack Kaddafi. Why should they? They expect the US taxpayer to pay for all military stockpiles. And that is part of the problem. We have ridiculous amounts spent in a military as to even invent wars (ie Mission Accomplished) and enemies (Saddam).

Meanwhile, even the most obvious waste cannot be eliminated by a Congress now and again dominated (since the last Congressional elections) only by extremists. One billion dollars a year eliminated by stop printing a foolish dollar bill. Anyone in UK, the EU, Canada or elsewhere would immediately recognize the stupidity. Why is the UK £2 (also called $3.25) in coin form? No other country in the world would be so stupid as to print a paper £0.80 piece. Or a 1.33 Euro currency. No intelligence country would circulate currency that tiny in paper.

Congress gets all fizzed up over a trivial $38 billion spending cut. And cannot even eliminate $1 billion annually by replacing a paper dollar bill with the equivalent gold colored coin.

We don't even need half that military. And we don't need the paper dollar bill. Neither will be addressed due to too many extremist in Congress and too few moderates (which means higher intelligence).

You might notice I didn't say biggest or most expensive or anything at all about forms of currency. I said I believe each of our individual services should be the strongest of its type. I also said it should and could be done with much less cost.

Would you care to address that or do you want to educate us on the 70 hp/L engine for awhile?

By my observation, something like only one in four DoD contracts actually work. However only an Enron executive (or business school graduate) would solve problems by cutting spending. That never addresses the problem. The problem is directly traceable to those who authorize spending by coming from the business schools rather than from where the work gets done.

The problem is not too much money. The problem are too many experts without fundamental knowledge making decisions. That results in more layers of bureaucracy and more waste. The solution was well defined by W E Deming. It starts by addressing the only reason for so many DoD contracts that have no purpose. Management.

Only the most naive solve problems by using cost controls. Cost controls always increase costs. Solution always come from those who know how the work gets done. But as business school types promote more of their own, then costs increase.

No different than in GM where top management could not even drive a car. So of course Rick Wagoner said GM's only problem was the economy. He was just as dumb as the executives who approve DoD R&D without even a science degree.

Need we again cite Carly Fiorina as the only reason for HP's problems back then? A history major from Stamford and a salesman for Lucent. Therefore she too would only harm an R&D company. And then in the meeting I attended, she said she would solve these problems with better costs controls and a new accounting system. Could she be any dumber? Her solution was also costs controls. Solve problems by controlling spending rather than learn about the product.

How to fix our problems? Every Senator and Congressman must fill out his own tax returns by hand and without assistance. Currently tax accountants do it for them because they do not even understand the tax laws they have created. Just like those who approve DoD spending, Rick Wagoner, and Carly Fiorina. Always go after the problem. Not its symptoms (ie cash flow).

Again, that's a good reply to a statement I didn't make. Please point to the part where I said cutting costs was the solution? Cutting costs would be a welcome and needed byproduct of cutting out the fraud, waste, and abuse in the R&D process. You're so quick to regurgitate your factoids that you don't even stop to contemplate whether you do in fact disagree with a post.

The trouble is, as far as I can see, that as soon as you start trying to zero in on waste and unnecessary expenditure, vested interests in some service areas are so powerful that the spotlight just kind of glides over them before coming to rest firmly over the service areas without powerful vested interests to protect them.

Consequently, even though it often starts out as a genuine attempt to streamline and make government fairer and more cost effective accross the board, it ends up being about limiting the help available to the weakest in society, whilst cushioning the blow for more powerful sections of society.

So you want this to be about your intelligence. I have no problem discussing you and UG as the same intellectual micro-brains. You make it so easy.

You can stop being a scumbag now because numbers such as the 70 Hp/l engine were too complicated for you. Best you stop the cheapshot and deal with facts as posted.

Ridiculous is a military where the world's largest Air Force is the US Air Force. And the world's second largest Air Force is the US Navy. At what point do our allies start contributing to world stability? We have no business being the world's only policeman. And that is exactly what the Project for a New American Century (and the George Jr administration) wants. After all, we must protect 'our' oil in Iraq.

Only those who love excessive military and who invent enemies need a military that massive. Only dying empires maintain a military that excessive.

The question is about where we waste our resources. Two perfectly ideal example are the US military and the paper dollar bill. Perfect examples because extremists do not want to address these major problems.

As DanaC said: That problem exists only when Congress is dominated by extremists rather than pragmatists. When the political agenda is more important than the nation.

Unless the problem is overspending.

For the record, Spexx - this is the type of post that interferes with discussion on the issues.

OK, now can you find in this thread where I said we should have the 2 largest air forces in the world? Next can you find in this thread where I've said we should be the world's police force? After you're done with that can you find where I've said it is our job to maintain global stability?
For bonus points I'd like you to cite something that would make you believe I disagree with this.

I'll wait.

For goodness sake, tw. You really are arguing at a tangent from Lookout there. He very clearly stated that he would want to drastically cut down military spending. Just that he wuold do so by gutting the wasteful and fraudulent elements of RnD, and stop having soldiers posted in bases all over the globe. he specifically said he would want the US military to stop being a global police force and concentrate on having the best and most effective army possible for the defence of the nation.


[eta[ and please, please stop with the nasty personal insults.

On that we agree. But anything you might say is not the point. I deal with the realities. The topic is waste and excessive spending. No problem. I gave two simple examples of why even what you have posted cannot happen.

If we cannot even eliminate $1 billion per year wasted on paper dollar bills, then we have too many extremists in Congress. And too few people to address the real problems.

extremist

The tangent is the real problem and the only viable solution.

Yes, we do have too many troops overseas. Our extremists want to station as many troops in Iraq as we already have in Korea. That makes no sense. But the solution is not found in cutting costs. The solution is found in addressing the only reasons for those costs.

And again, that cannot happen when we cannot even eliminate the paper dollar bill.

But that's precisely the point. By bringing those soldiers home and closing the bases you cut down costs.



[eta] hang on what? Wtf has eliminating paper money got to do with anything?

OK, now if we take your straw man currency issue off the table for a moment (mind you I don't disagree with that issue, it just isn't directly associated with the issue we were discussing) can you not see you got all hot and bothered jumping to regurgitate your same ol' same ol' as a response to something... you agreed with?

Ah. there's the rub.

Proposals like the flat tax, Ryan's budget or yours assume they will result in more money coming into the treasury.

But they are based on economic growth assumptions that the incentives will be so great for consumers and businesses to spend and invest that the economy will grow faster and higher than any time in recent history, at rates of 7% or more annually. I think we've only seen a 7% growth rate once in the last 30-40 years.

Reagan's former budget director recently described it as Alice in Wonderland economic assumptions.

Oh and everyone does pay something into the federal treasury, in the form of federal excise taxes (eg gas tax) and payroll taxes (FICA), in which those with wages under $100K pay a higher percentage than those over $100K (since payroll taxes are only on the first $100K).

Start with the penny.

It cost 1.79 cents to produce one penny. Eliminate the penny, save $billions.

Yeah. But...that penny gets used many times.

So.... You discount prima facie anything lookout might ever say? You might want to clarify your meaning.

Also you seem to have changed your argument. Earlier it seemed that you were arguing against R&D cuts. Now you seem to be saying that such cuts would not be possible. Are you changing course, or is that a pile-on?

Either you believe the very wealthy are paying taxes at 35%+ right now or you don't. If you don't then by eliminating the loopholes the treasury must receive more money. If they are paying 35% I'd like to quit hearing about the very wealthy paying nothing.

Personally, I believe the very wealthy pay significantly less than 35% because they have shelters and loopholes. Therefore, I believe 1% on every dollar up to $X0,000 and 25/35/39?% on every dollar over MUST generate more income than 0%on the first $40-50K and Less than 39 on everything over, regardless of the growth rate of the economy.

The real tax rate (all state/federal taxes) for the top taxpayers is in the low 30% range....the lowest they have paid in 50 years.

I've not seen any example where your math works in real dollars in a real economy.

How about corporations, lookout?

No troops can be brought home if something so simple - elimiante the paper dollar bill - cannot even be done. Why is that so difficult? Why do extremists want more than 20,000 American soldiers stationed permanently in Iraq? They cannot even eliminate the dollar bill. That says why other more difficult solutions cannot happen.

And yes, also eliminate the penny. That is also obvious. It is it not obvious to anyone, then that person could not see the real problem. If the penny cannot be eliminated, then how will any 'power that be' have enough foresight to bring any soldiers home? Cannot happen. A problem directly traceable to a Congress with too many extremists and not enough moderates.

IOW, if Congress had moderates, then obscene spending on a penny and paper dollar bill would be eliminated immediately. Examples of why the problems are not being addressed. And why some American want 20,000 American troops permenantly stations in Iraq.

I really do not see why the bigger picture is so difficult?

That's got to be the dumbest straw-man argument I've seen, tw. Do you also say, "They put a man on the moon. Why can't they ..."?

Same thing.

I am trying to identify the real problem. What DanaC only calls a tangent. To step back and see why these details are not solvable, often ignored, and lost in the bickering.

We have a $trillion problem. Our Congress goes to war over a misguided, insignificant, and trivial $38 billion. And cannot even discuss eliminating the paper dollar bill. That (and not those details) are the bigger problem. And that includes a military that is twice the size of what it should be due to hype and fear.

I had a feeling that sentence would not be understood.

Paper money's status will be moot soon enough, as the majority converts to card and electronic payments for everything in the next ten years.

But in the meantime, we should put Reagan's image on the penny instead of the dime (as Republicans proposed several years ago, replace that socialist FDR) and I'll give all my jars of pennies to a socialist cause.

I can appreciate your logic. But the problem remains spending money we do not have. Not about solving impossible social problems (where your quoted argument was often found). The 'we can put a man on the moon... " argument justified spending on other things that were not solvable by government. Our government spending problems are solvable only when we address obvious and simple government inaction first. Like the silly paper dollar bill and the penny.

Meanwhile, if people who put 'a man on the moon' were the 'powers that be', then even the paper dollar bill, the penny, and other spending problems would be solved. The problem is a Congress so full of extremists. So extremist as to not even put a man back on the moon - the foolish Constellation and Aries program.

How's that for irony.

There has to be a balance there and I couldn't begin to tell you what the percentage should be. (as I've also tried to be clear I don't know what the percentage should be for personal income)

I believe we should cut out sweetheart deals that pay companies to do business for a period of time while the profits go elsewhere. I also believe we have to be sensitive to the fact if we tax to heavily companies relocate their operations outside the country. Like the wealthy, businesses spend billions on armies of accoutants trying to milk the tax code for every penny. If the tax code is essentially (revenue - capital expenses) x X% = tax obligation I believe the companies will spend more in taxes but less in tax avoidance. There is a huge cost to tax avoidance and the regulation and audits are hugely expensive. I believe there is a point in there somewhere where the public coffers and the corporations would benefit. (just as I've said about the wealthy)

For me the discussion is less about the percentage charged than it is the game that is played. The elected, the IRS, and the accounting industry have a vested interest in keeping things complex. If we don't understand it then we need them. They get to keep using taxes to stir the idea of class warfare. We remain divided and they remain in Washington in their castles.

***
All that combined with massive cuts in spending (not for the sake of just accounting games but for the sake of acknowledging the government can't keep printing money and they can't keep funding every little boondoggle and pork barrel project someone wants) are needed if we are to keep this country afloat for years to come. A family can't survive for long by spending more than they make and neither can a country.

Dude, what do expect when you post something like:
Again: the above statement is the kind of comment that starts a flame war. It's your style. You can't seem to help yourself. Someone posts some benign comment, and there you are with a snide

You recently pointed the finger at me for causing the problems. Look at yourself.

Corporate tax loopholes for political $upport is driving politics the wrong way. As long as we're throwing shit out there, let's have zero corporate tax, zero personal income tax, and 20% federal sales tax or VAT. Leave in place capital gains, as a form of VAT on investments.

That is a problem. However it is not the IRS that makes things complex. IRS only execute the laws. Laws that create 10,000+ pages. Nobody in the IRS can understand it. Congressmen cannot even understand their own taxes.

No different than a GM executive who does not even have a driver's license.

It is no longer a game when men who make the rules must also live by the consequences. Currently rule makers do not. Making them do their own taxes by hand would not solve the problem. But let them know how bad things really are.

Iacocca said he could make Chrysler more profitable by turning it into a finance company. Playing finance games was more profitable than being productive. Today it is even worse. Games created by Congress to both with spending and taxes. So, yes, that really is the problem. Not the taxes or spending. The people who continue to make these problems and who cannot do anything to solve them. People who do not even understand the consequences of their actions.

Spending and tax laws are not the problem. Those are only symptoms. We have a government now dominated by extremists. That means solutions - even eliminating a paper dollar bill - are almost impossible.

Who lost most in the last Congressional elections? Moderates lost by a landslide. Therein lays the loss of our best problem solvers.

What they pay according to the Economist of 30 April 2011.
General Electric 3.6%
Mereck 12.5%
HP 20%
Johnson and Johnson 22%

Propaganda says corporations pay 35%. They forget the complex nonsense (games) that lookout123 discusses. And the reason why many in the Fortune 100 pay no taxes.

These are not problems. These are only symptoms of the problem. The existence of the penny and paper dollar bill are also symptoms.

What I don't like about that is that you and I, probably, will be taxed on 100% of our income, because we spend it all. Someone else, who makes a lot of money, may on spend, and be taxed on, half of their income. I can't say that it's good or bad, it just makes me uncomfortable.

And there you go with your selective reading again. I would rather have a discussion about the issue. You'll note that TW is discussing the issue rather than insulting the other poster now. With that I'll walk away from what will be pointless bickering with you.

I think you need to be specific. How much income and what tax rate, specifically?

The very least amount necessary to cover the expenses. Of course, those expenses should be lowered as we cut unnecessary programs and fraud, waste, and abuse from the budget. I'm fairly certain I've convered that somewhere.

Good answer lookout. That's the best possible answer at this juncture. No one knows what the expenses will be, nor what the revenue will be. Living within our means is the goal here, and I believe that should be undertaken from BOTH directions.

Related, but also bothering me---

I hear lots of conversations about taxes. And two very common themes are debt reduction and revenue neutrality. These two ideas are not interchangeable. They're different. And anyone, even Paul Ryan, who suggests that our debt reduction can be achieved by revenue neutral actions alone is wrong. Our government needs revenue. To suggest otherwise ridiculous. And our debt can not be retired without increasing that revenue.

Wait - I see a pattern here. Someone points out that Lookout might be the problem around here... and he posts that the discussion is over.

Reminds me of this conversation, where you were a hammer.
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=3...age#post386109

I'll give you an autograph but I will not give you any scraps of my hair or fingernails regardless how much you stalk me. It is flattering though.

Edit: I've now gone back and re-read that 3 1/2 year old thread and I got a good chuckle. Spexx, in that thread you had established some nebulous value as "enough" but you wouldn't say what "enough" was. In this thread I have repeatedly stated I don't know what the "number" should be as I'm not the guy who has torn apart all the raw numbers. I do believe the clearly addressed the concept though and you're just playing another of your passive aggressive games. It really is pretty funny that in a thread where you're being an ass you link to a 3 and a half year old thread where you were being an ass. Probably not the strongest case you could have made in your favor.

DNA "sample"?

...in the mouth?

I will not buttfuck him in the mouth.

:corn:

I can't wait till the Demoncrats re-propose a VAT and try to blame it on the Republickins. God Damm Fools..........

On the positive side, everyone would have an incentive to save.

Both sides of the equation have to be dealt with to get our debt under control. Nobody is going to like what has to be done, so it is up to voters to elect adults and vote like adults even though our pet ideologies are violated.

Case in point. Pete's company had a stake in this but building stuff the Pentagon doesn't want isn't how you balance a budget. Defense contractors have been brilliant in spreading contracts out across congressional districts, an almost perfect scheme.

The bill takes a step toward reviving an extra engine for the next generation F-35 fighter plane despite objections from the administration and Gates that the engine is not needed.

The Pentagon recently notified General Electric/Rolls Royce that it had terminated its contract and work was stopped a month ago, saving $1 million a day. The company said last week it would spend its own money to build the engine.

The bill would force the Pentagon to reopen competition for the engine if defense officials have to ask Congress for more money so Pratt & Whitney can build the chosen design.

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., called the effort a "back-door way" of getting the engine back in.

Yeah, entirely different.

That GE/Rolls Royce engine for the strike fighter is a freaking vampire that will not die. It is an absolute waste of taxpayer money. Every congressperson who voted in favor of reviving it is working at odds with the American taxpayer.

Pratt and Whitney won the competition. They got the contract. The military does not want or need the extra engine. You see, they've already got one.

I'm not even convinced we need this new fighter at all, but if we are going to get it, at least do it in a smart way.